What is the prevalent ethical managerial style of MBA ...
Post on 19-Dec-2021
3 Views
Preview:
Transcript
University of Montana University of Montana
ScholarWorks at University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana
Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School
1990
What is the prevalent ethical managerial style of MBA students: What is the prevalent ethical managerial style of MBA students:
Immoral amoral or moral? Immoral amoral or moral?
William T. Rupp The University of Montana
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd
Let us know how access to this document benefits you.
Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Rupp, William T., "What is the prevalent ethical managerial style of MBA students: Immoral amoral or moral?" (1990). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 5615. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/5615
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact scholarworks@mso.umt.edu.
Mike and Maureen MANSFIELD LIBRARY
Copying allowed as provided under provisions of the Fair Use Section of the U.S.
COPYRIGHT LAW, 1976.Any copying for commercial purposes
or financial gain may be undertaken only with the author’s written consent.
University ofMontana
What is the Prevalent Ethical Managerial
Style of MBA Students: Immoral, Amoral or Moral?
Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Master,, of Business Administration
University of Montana
1990
By
William T . Rupp
B. A., Azusa Pacific University
Approved by
chairman, Board of Examiners
ean, Graduate School
UMI Number: EP41079
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependen t upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely even t that the author did not send a com plete m anuscript and there are missing pages, th ese will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
Dissertation Publishing
UMI EP41079
Published by ProQ uest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © ProQ uest LLC.All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United S ta te s Code
ProQ uest LLC.789 E ast Eisenhow er Parkway
P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 4 8 1 0 6 - 1346
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Proposal .................................... . . 1-7
Methodology . .......................... 8-10
Results ................................... 11
Discussion and Implications ............... 12-15
Bibliography ........... 16-17
Exhibits
#1 90% Lilliefors forExperimental Group Pretest .... 18
#2 90% Lilliefors forExperimental Group Post test .. 19
#3 90% Lilliefors forControl Group Pretest...... 20
#4 90% Lilliefors forControl Post test ............. 21
#5 Cover Letter ........................ 22
#6 Survey ........................... 23-24
#7 MANOVA Results .................. 25-26
#8 Summary of means and Lillifores ... 27
From Congress to the pulpit, morality and ethics
are a national issue. A recent poll of personnel
executives suggests that the state of ethics is
more of an "ethical malaise ...than a crisis,"
(Halcrow,1987). The respondents to this survey gave
their reasons for unethical behavior as power (74%),
money (73%), advancement (40%), and recognition
(38%). (Percentages are of the total responding.)
These responses point to problems involving morality
and ethical behavior in significant arenas of
business. Rosenberg's (1987) findings confirm that
many managers do not make high moral standards and
good ethical behavior a priority in the decision
making process when related to the business goals of
sales and profit maximization. In order to gain a
clear understanding of moral managerial styles and
the process of moral decision making, Carroll (1987)
defines three styles of managerial morality and moral
decision making: 1. Moral decision making. 2. Immoral
decision making. 3. Amoral decision making. This
paper will address the question of which type of
ethical managerial style is the most prevalent in MBA
students? It is expected that the research would show
todays MBAs and tomorrows managers have adopted a
moral, immoral or amoral managerial style of decision
(1)
making, and that the largest grouping will be in the
amoral category.
Several studies have been done recently on
students' ethical behaviors. Reichel and Neumann
(1989) attempted to show ethical differences between
business students and liberal arts students. Their
findings concluded that liberal art students place a
higher emphasis on business ethics than their
management counter-parts. Stevens' (1984)
study concluded that current executive -
management's ethical attitudes and behaviors exhibit
a higher standard than those of current college
students. Arlow and Ulrich (1985) bring disturbing
news to the education community by stating, "Our
findings suggest that there is no long term effect of
teaching business ethics to undergraduate business
students in a business and society course.”
Rosenberg's (1987) research centered on a business
simulation to examine the values of managers and the
question of payments to foreign officials to assure
future business. The findings concluded that,
"Economic goal achievement took precedence over
personal morality; and perceptions of prevailing
business practice or pragmatic assessment of risk and
benefit, were the principal elements in arriving at a
decision recognized by most as a departure from
(2)
traditional business ethics. Although previous
researcL... appears to confirm the presence of an
ethical malaise, the consequences of ignoring moral
and ethical concerns in business are illustrated in
the following cases.
Johns-Manvilie Corporation knew as early as 1964
the effects of asbestos contamination, but management
decided to suppress this information (Gellerman,1986;
Lavelle,1989). Ivan Boesky was indicted and
convicted for insider-trading. His settlement of a
law suit with his ex-partners cost him $248 million
(Torabzadeh, Davidson, & Asser,1989; Cowan,1990). E.F
Hutton managers pleaded guilty to 2,000 counts of
mail and wire fraud, accepting a fine of $2 million
dollars, and putting up $8 million to fund
restitution for the 400 banks that the company had
systematically bilked (Gellerman, 1986; Flint,1987).
Jim Wright, Speaker of the House of Representatives,
under investigation by the House Ethics Committee was
forced to resign (Carlson,1989). Westinghouse has
been investigated by the U.S. Justice Department and
the Securities and Exchange Commission for bribery in
building a nuclear power plant in the Philippines. In
1978 Westinghouse had pled guilty to bribery of an
Egyptian official and paid a $ 300,000 fine
(Dumaine,1986) Minister Jim Bakker was convicted of
(3)
24 counts of defrauding the public of $3.7 million
through ... his television, phone and mail ministry
(Ostling,1989). Beech-Nut pled guilty to 215 counts
of selling phony apple juice from 1981 to 1983. Beech
nut, a subsidiary of the Nestle Corporation, was the
subject of an international boycott during the 1970s
for selling baby formula to third world countries
that some claim caused the death of 10,000 children
per year (Flint,1987) .
In an attempt to do away with the ethical
malaise and brinq the morality of managerial decision
making into a clearer light, Carroll (1987)
theorized three styles of managerial morality. These
styles are: the moral manager, the immoral manager
and the amoral manager. Carroll believes the bane of
American business is the amoral manager for this
style of manager constitutes the largest segment of
American management. A discussion of the three styles
follows.
The Immoral Manager
The immoral manager's decision-making motives
are purely selfish. His/Her decision making may be
outside of the goals of the company and even
injurious to the company. Profits drive his/her
behavior and operate as his conscience. Moral or
(4)
ethical considerations are not involved in the
decision-., process unless they will increase profits.
Decisions may be legally borderline and sometimes may
even be outside the law. The justification for
his/her decisions are that the immoral action enhance
and enlarge profit, therefore the ends justify the
means. Such concerns as safety, public relations,
truth in advertising, or the environment are
unimportant. He/She does not care what the claims of
others are in regards to being just or fair.
The Moral Manager
The moral manager's decision-making processes
are driven by high moral standards coupled with good
ethical behavior. The methods of accomplishing
business goals fall within the confines of the law
and accepted moral and ethical standards of behavior
for the company and the individual. The moral manager
works not only within the law, but within the spirit
of the law. Safety, health, truth in advertising, the
environment, and public relations are major
considerations in the decision process. The moral
manager will not pursue profits at the expense of the
law and sound ethics. Honesty and trust are high
priorities in dealing with all stakeholders. Long
range goals are not compromised for short term
returns. He/She is not myopic. He/She is aware that
(5)
all business decisions may have an ethical or moral
question-that must be addressed.
The Amoral Manager
The amoral manager's decision-making is within
the goals of the company. The amoral manager may have
a personal value system that leads him/her to act
with high moral behavior apart from the work place.
However, the amoral manger believes that ethical and
moral considerations have no place within the sphere
of business. Compartmentalization of his/her life is
done by separating business, family, social, and
religious activities. To the amoral manager, business
is business and ethics are ethics. The two do not
exist together.
According to Carroll, there are two types of
amoral managers: intentional and unintentional.
Intentional amoral managers believe that business
operates under its own set of rules rather than a
standard rule for moral and ethical behavior. These
managers intentionally factor out moral and ethical
considerations in the decision-making process.
The potentially more dangerous group of managers
is the unintentional amoral manager. These managers
lack moral perception or moral awareness. Their
decision-making processes take place without
realizing that their business decisions may have an
(6)
ethical or moral dimension. They perceive the letter
of the law as the boundary by which their decision
making process is guided. The impact on others, the
environment, or public image is not a major
consideration, unless it negatively impacts profits.
The Research Question
Carroll's work was conceptual rather than
empirical, consequently, is hypothesis has not been
tested. This paper will- test the hypothesis put
forward by Carroll which states: The distribution of
the three types of moral managers exist in a standard
normal distribution with the amoral managerial style
representing the major portion of the distribution.
The tails of the normal distribution will represent
the moral and immoral managerial styles.
A second hypothesis to be answered is the ethics
class post test will show the class became more moral
in it's decision making processes as a result of the
course material.
(7)
Methodology
ParticipantsThe population for this research was MBA students
at the University of Montana. From the population, a
sample of students was selected. The students in the
graduate ethics course (N=10) comprised the
experimental qroup and the students in the graduate
finance course (N=20) were the control group. These
courses were chosen because the ethics course is an
elective while the finance course is in the core
curriculum of the MBA program.
The use of MBA students serves a number of
purposes. First, MBA students come from diverse
backgrounds and locations. They have spent time in
the work force (avg. of 2.2 yrs.) and have had some
managerial experience (avg. of 1.4 yrs). They are
older (avg. of 33 yrs old) and possibly more mature
than undergraduate students. Finally, MBA students
are readily available and accessible.
MaterialsThe testing instrument was a survey form
comprised of 26 statements. The statements were
derived by the researcher from Carroll's list of
morality attributes assigned to each type of moral
management decision making style. The statements were
(8)
designed to have a moral, immoral, or amoral
implication. Statements ranked at the extremes (1-
always or 6-never) indicate strong moral conviction
regarding the statement. These responses evidence an
strong conviction or belief regarding the moral
attitude the respondent has toward the statement.
Responses in-between represent a degree of ethical or
moral belief. These responses are ranked as 2-almost
always, 3-sometimes, 4-seldom, 5-almost never. These
responses lack conviction to an absolute value and
the respondent is allowing other considerations to
influence his/her decision making process (ie;
profits, power, personal advancement, personal gain,
etc...) and thus these influences overshadow moral or
ethical factors.
ProcedureThe pretest survey was administered during
normally scheduled class period near the beginning of
the winter quarter, 1990. Participants were read a
cover letter to the survey by the researcher. The
cover letter gave a brief reason for studying ethics,
the reason for asking MBA students to participate,
and an example of how to mark the survey (see exhibit
5) .
The process of completing the survey was as
follows: After reading a statement regarding a
(9)
managerial action or attitude, the respondent was
asked to- mark his/her response. The survey used a
forced choice segmented scale. The scale was on a
segmented continuum with "Never" on the left end and
"Always" on the right end (see exhibit 6).
The post test was given on the last scheduled
class period of the winter quarter, 1990. The post
test was the same survey used for the pretest. At the
completion of the post test, the surveys were coded
and paired by pretest, post test for experimental and
control groups.
(10)
ResultsThe - hypothesis put forth by Carroll that the
distribution of the three types of moral managers
exist in a standard normal distribution pattern with
the amoral managerial style representing the major
portion of the distribution was tested using
Lilliefors Test of Normality (Keller, Warrack &
Bartel,1990) for the standard normal distribution.
This test was run using frequency data from the
experimental group pre-test and post test as well as
the control finance group.
The ethics pretest (exhibit 1) shows the standard
normal distribution of student respondents was
normal at the 10% significance level. The ethics
post test (exhibit 2) shows the distribution is not
normal at the 10% significance level. The finance
control group (exhibits 3 & 4) shows the distribution
is normal in the pretest and post test at the 10%
significance level (exhibits 3 & 4).
The multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA)
analysis revealed no significant shifts in the total
ethics pretest/post test or in the finance
pretest/post test. An analysis of variance (ANOVA)
analysis of the individual statements revealed a
significant shift (p > .05) in two questions within
the experimental group (see exhibit 7).
(11)
Conclusions and Implications
The conclusions and implications of this paper
are limited by the sample sizes and homogeneity of
the population, therefore the findings are tentative.
The finding of a standard normal distribution of
those students not in the ethics experimental group
seems to confirm Carroll's (1987) hypothesis that the
distribution of the amoral managerial style
representing the major portion-of the distribution.
The small shift between the ethics experimental group
pretest/post test seems to support Arlow and Ulrich's
(1985) work. While the detection of amoral behavior
is difficult to define and even more difficult to
detect, there is a possibility other forces affected
the results. Students bias to picking extremes on a
survey could have influenced the marking of the
surveys. Students may have given the response based
on expected response rather than real behavior. Also,
small sample size due to the elimination of students
in both classes may limit the application of this
study. However, failure to reject Carroll's
hypothesis at a 10% significance level provides
evidence that the distribution of the ethics pretest
and finance pretest/post test is a standard normal
distribution. The rejection of Carroll's hypothesis
(12)
for the ethics post test shows a shift of the
students. However, the MANOVA analysis failed to show
that the shift was significant.
The reason for the shift is difficult to
ascertain. Obviously, the sensitivity to ethical
consideration due to class discussion and analysis
could be the reason for the shift. Although this
could be the reason, alternate explanations could
include post test bias due to familiarity with the
survey or the expectations of the survey taker
(guinea pig effect).
The MANOVA analysis concluded that, except for
two questions, the pretest/post test shift was not
significant.
The two questions that exhibited a significant
shift (p < .05) were questions seven and eleven.
Question seven, "Lying in business is wrong" (p =
.04) deals with the truth and integrity in business.
The ethics class format exposed over and over the
consequences of lying and partial truth. The shift in
this question may be attributable to this exposure.
The second question to shift was question eleven,
"Top management should give the expected ethical
example" (p = .04). This question deals with the
source of ethical and moral example. The ethics
course cases and class discussion brought to light
(13)
the source and enforcement of ethical principles of
an organization begins with top management. This
exposure possibly encouraged the shift.
The implications of this study could possibly be
far reaching. First, if the managerial style of
actual managers is amoral, then ethical problems will
continue to plague business. This type of manager
will continue to make decisions that damage the
environment, put the worker at risk, deceive the
government, and cost tax payers billions of dollars
(ie; the Savings and Loan bailout, Karmin, 1990).
Carroll’s perception of this amoral manager as the
bane of American management may be true.
Secondly, ethics courses seem to have little effect
on the movement of students' values in regards to
ethical decision making. Again, this finding would
tend to confirm Arlow and Ulrich's (1985) research.
If this trend cannot be reversed, if an answer to the
amoral managerial style cannot be found, those in
education maybe adding to the amoral ranks of
tomorrows' managers. Perhaps, every class should have
an unit on ethical behaviors and the consequences of
ethical amorality. This continual exposure to ethical
issues and the costs of neglecting these issues may
stem the tide of the amoral managerial style. In
addition, the lack of significant shift between the
(14)
ethics experimental group and the finance control
group pretest or post test seems to reveal that the
survey administered to the finance control group had
as much effect on the morality of the students as the
entire quarter of an ethics course.
In the opinion of the researcher, there is a
need for continuing research into the question of
moral and ethical managerial styles and ethical
decision making. A larqer study of not only future
managers but a study of current managers would help
to further clear the ethical malaise. The need for
effective educational techniques and business
implementation has never been greater nor the task
larger. The fate of American business, and for that
matter, all business will die without a basis for
trust (Rosenberg,1987). The rejection of the need for
ethical and moral research because of the softness or
difficulty of the topic will certainly push us
further down the road of mistrust and enlarge the
current ethical malaise.
(15)
B I B L I O G R A P H Y
Arlow,Peter; Ulrich,Thomas,A.,: 'Business Ethics andBusiness School Graduates: A Lonqitudinal Study', Akron Business and Economic Revie_w Spring ( 1985) pp 13-17
Be1tramini,Richard,F.; Peterson,Robert,A.;Kozetsky,George,Concerns of College Students Regarding Business Ethics',Journa1 _of Business Ethics 3 (1984) pp 195-200
Carlson,Margaret, : 'Have We Gone Too Far', Time June12 (1989) pp.18-22
Carroll,Archie B.,: 'In Search of the Moral Manger',Business Horizons March-Apr.il ( 1987) pp 7-15
Cowan, Alison Leigh ,:'Boesky suit pays $248 million to expartners', New York Times January 9 (1990)PP C5
Dumaine,Brain,: 'Nuclear Fiasco' Fortune September 1(1986) pp 39-45
Flint,William C.,: 'Corporate Crime', Baltimore SunDecember 21 (1987) pp. M-1+
Gellerman,Saul W.,: 'Why "good" managers make badethical choices', Harvard Business_Review July-August (1986) pp 85-90
Halcrow,Allan,: 'Is There a Crisis in BusinessEthics?', Personnel Journal November (1987) pp 10-17 " " ... "
Kaimin, Monroe W.,: 'Oh, that costly S&L mess!',U.S.News and World Report April 9 (1990) pp 37-40
Keller, Gerald; Warrack, Brain; Bartel, Henry,:'Statistics for Management and Economics',Wadsworth Publishing Company: Belmont California (19 90) pp 625, 628-631
Lavelle, Michael J B u s i n e s s ethics:Tone set at the top', Richmond Times-Dispatch April 16 (.1989) p F-3
McGuire, Joseph,W.,: Business and Society, McGraw- Hill, New York, 1963 pp 271-291
Michelman, James H.,: 'Some Ethical Consequences ofEconomic Compet j.t ion * , Journal of Business Ethics 2 (1983) pp 79-88
(16)
Ostling, Richard,: 'Judgement Day', Time October 16(1989) p 65
Purcell,Theodore, V.,: 'Do Ethics Courses Pay Off?', California Management Review 4 (1977) pp 50-58
Reichel,Arie; Neumann,Yoram,: 'Student AttitudesToward Business Ethics: Differences Between Liberal Arts and Management' Journal of Instructional Psychology 15;1 (19 89) pp 25-33
Rosenberg, Richard,D.,: 'Managerial Morality andBehavior: The Questionable Payments Issue', Journal of Business Ethics 6 (1987) pp 23-36
Sorenson, Ralph,: 'Can Ethics and Profit Live Under The Same Roof', Financial Executive, March-April (1988) p.24
Stevens, George,E.„, : 'Business Ethics and Social Responsibility: The Response of Present and Future Mangers', Akron Business and Economic Review Fall (1984) pp 6-11
Torabzadeh, Khalil,M.; Davidson,Dan; Assar,Hamid,:'The Effect of the Recent Insider-trading Scandal on the Stock Prices of Securities Firms', Journal of Business Ethics April (1989) pp 299-304
(17)
*<ftaEpQQOMS0*
w<
-*>c
c:acc:o
Exhibit V 190 % Li H i fores for Experimental Pretest Group
1.0J i f
100-95 0-
■2 0 -.8
7•s-
6> i / 1
.5
//.4
’■/// /
3
2 ‘T/trt/////-»- 50-.1
.030 1 23 2 1
STANDARDIZED SAMPLE VALUE
The maximum distance between the Normal and sample CDPs is 0.27S8.This maximum occurs at z = 0.1447, x = 4.8000000000E+01.The hypothesis of normality is not rejected at the 10.0\ significance level. The critical distance is 0.297.
(18)
KCjse
pflo
owsc
^a
w<
H4>
>rc
xGn
Exhibit » 2
90 % Lilli fores for Experimental Post test Group
1.0
//9 »-»-
8 ffr- t o -
/ / ,.7
.6//
.5
4
.3
.2
-SB.1-too
03-3 2 1 0 1 2
STANDARDIZED SAMPLE VALUE
The maximum distance between the HoriBl and sample CDPs is 0.3145.This maximum occurs at z = -0.3794, x * 2.6000000000E+01.The hypothesis of normality is rejected at the 10.0% significance level. The critical distance is 0.297.
(19)
-cox
tKja
oDos
o-’O
w<>-
<>*>
.c,'oo
» «
<H
^>
rcic
nExhibit « 3
90 % Lilli fores for Control Pretest Group
1.0
/ '■///// ■ t'■/!//Htfa
i»-95 0-
•30-
.8
.7
.6
rahiii/.5
.4
.3
.2 -a- 30-
03 2 1 0 1 2 3
STANDARDIZED SAMPLE VALUE
The maximum distance between the Normal and sample CDPs is 0.1889.This maximum occurs at z - -0.0557, x * 1.0400000000E+02.The hypothesis of normality is not rejected at the 10.0* significance level. The critical distance is 0.297.
(20)
KO9BDQaD00n*<Q
W<*-***3
CW50
«!<;►-« *-3 >'C~‘GXC
:r5
-Exhibit I 4
90 % Lillifores for Control Post test Group
1.0
9■50-
■30-
.810-
7
.6
5' / / / /l/jl
////' / / . /.4
.3
.2-»-30
l :®r -100
o3 2 1 0 1 2 3
STANDARDIZED SAMPLE VALUE
The maximua distance between the Normal and sample CDPs Is 0.1516.This maximum occurs at z = 0.3898, x = 1.1800000000E+02.The hypothesis of normality is not rejected at the 10.0\ significance level. The critical distance is 0.297.
(21)
Exhibit 5
Cover letter
From Congress to the pulpit, morality and ethics are a national issue. A recent poll of personnelexecutives in Personnel Journal suggests that the state of ethics is more of an "ethical malaise...than a crisis," (Halcrow,1987).
Today we are asking MBA students to complete a survey that will provide data for a study in the area of business ethics. We ask you to answer truthfullyas possible. Answer with your first response afterreading the statement.
Your responses will be kept absolutelyconfidential.
The results of this survey will be incorporatedinto a professional papers by one of your fellow MBAstudents. This professional paper is a requirement for graduation from the program.
Please follow along as I read the instructionsfor completing the survey. ----- "Please mark thebroken line with an "X" to indicate your response to the statement. If your response is "never", mark thefar left. If your response is "Always, mark the far right. If your response is somewhere between "Never" and "Always" mark the appropriate spot along theline."
When you have completed your survey, pleaseleave it on the table as you leave.
Thank you for your participation.
(22)
Exhibit $
8 u r v * y
Male I Age.Female I
U n d e r g r a d u a t e Major E s t i m a t e d GPA
I Single I Married I Divorced
I ChildrenI Yes II Number __
No
Attending School: Full time.Part tlme_
E x p e c t e d E m p l o y m e n t at the completion of the MBA program N u m b e r of years spent in the work force so farN u m b e r of years spent as a member of a management team
Please mark the broken line with an "X" to indicate your response to the statement. If your response is "never", mark the far left. If your response Is "Always, mark the far right. If your response Is somewhere between "Never" and "Always" mark the appropriate spot along the line.
NEVER ALWAYS1. Ethics are over-rated
In the business world.
2. Sometimes it "OK" to shadethe truth.
3. Profits come before ethics.
4 . Obedience to superiors comebefore personal ethics.
5. Business is business andethics are ethics.
6. Good ethics are good business.
7. Lying in business is wrong.
8. Ethics have little placein business.
9. Moral issues just tie themanager's hands.
10.I look out for myself and the company, whatever it takes.
11.Top management should give the expected ethical example.
12.The company is first.(23)
I
II
I
II
NEVER ALWAYS13.I f 3 "OK" to break the law If It
gets in the way of doing business.
14.Management activity is outside of a moral order.
15.Management'3 only purpose is to Increase profits.
1 6 .Professlonal standards should be accepted and adhered to.
17.Moral claims are just too "squishy" to be enforced.
18.Integrity is more important than success.
19.Morality depends upon the situation.
20.Profits are economic morality.
21.Ethically sensitive managers are weak managers.
22.It is possible to be ethically neutral.
23.It doesn't hurt anyone to hedge on ethical or moral Issues.
24.Ethical ambiguity is a good reason to forget ethics.
25.Managers who are sensitive to others hurt3 are wimps.
26.Ethics are good if they can help make money.
(24)
Exhibit 7MANOVA Analysis 30 paired cases
Pretest / Post test Within-Subject Effect (two-tailed test)
F p1. Ethics are over-rated in the
business world. .34 .28
2. Sometimes it "OK" to shade thetruth. .33 .29
3. Profits come before ethics. .09 .38
4. Obedience to superiors comebefore personal ethics. .3G .27
5. Business is business and ethics-are ethics. .00 .48
6. Good ethics are good business. 1.31 .13
7. Lying in business is wrong. 3.28 **.04
8. Ethics have little place inbusiness. .08 .39
9. Moral issues just tie themanager's hands. .38 .27
10. I look out for myself and thecompany, whatever it takes. .08 .36
11. Top management should givethe expected ethical example. 3.57 **.03
12. The company is first. .62 .24
13. It's "OK" to break the law if itgets in the way of doing business .03 .43
14. Management activity is outsideof a moral order. 1.35 .13
15. Management's only purpose isto increase profits. .00 .50
16. Professional standards shouldbe accepted and adhered to. 1.02 .16
17. Moral claims are just too"squishy" to be enforced. 1.26 .14
(25)
18. Integrity is more importantthan success. 1.89
19. Morality depends upon the situation. .84
20. Profits are economic morality. .03
21. Ethically sensitive managersare weak managers. 1.54
22. It is possible to beethically neutral. .35
23. It doesn't hurt anyone to hedgeon ethical or moral issues. 1.10
24. Ethical ambiguity is a goodreason to forget ethics. .83
25. Managers who are sensitiveto others hurts are wimps. 1.21
26. Ethical behavior will paythe highest rewards. .00
(**) Denotes significant at p < .05
.09
.19
.43
.11
.28
.15
.19
.14
. 48
(26)
E x h ibit #8
Summary of Means and Lillifores— Experimental Group Control GroupPretest Post test Pretest Post test
n = 10 n = 25Freq. Freq. Freq. Freq.1 Ill 1 115 1 202 1 1372 48 2 49 2 169 2 1763 24 3 23 3 97 3 1184 40 4 26 4 104 4 785 19 5 22 5 60 5 456 15 6 9 6 15 6 11257 244 647 565Mean 2.428 2.254 2.53 2 . 559SD 1.601 1.526 1.425 1. 311
Exhibit # 190 % Lillifores for Experimental Pretest Group
Critical distance = .297 Maximum distance = .2758
Exhibit # 290 % Lillifores for Experimental Post test Group
Critical distance = .297 Maximum distance = .3145
Exhibit # 390 % Lillifores for Control Pretest Group
Critical distance = .297
Maximum distance = .1889
Exhibit # 490 % Lillifores for Control Post test Group
Critical distance = .297
Maximum distance = .1516
(27)
top related